Well we won’t know what we know if mark things as captive that shouldn’t be.
1 Like
I’m aware of plenty of localized biological invasions of things which shouldn’t necessarily be there, and many of them are not posted on iNat. Chances are, if something does become invasive or established somewhere, it will be known through other sources of knowledge & information as well.
Not necessarily. You’d be surprised. I was recently the first to document an invasive population of prairie dogs, if those hadn’t been posed here literally no one would have known about them!
1 Like
You’re not trying to predict the future, you’re just looking for data about what’s getting released and where, and where these released species have the potential to survive and even establish. That’s great and important data.
2 Likes
This reasoning does not make sense. Why should the burden be on scientists and researchers to do the cleanup when they do their data exports when there are volunteers with the knowledge and resource base to do it here? This just seems like reasoning for not wanting to change or improve data exports at all?
The other major problem is these unduly influence iNat’s machine-learning methods (i.e. “computer vision”); This causes many other problems in that f/when there are become enough of these non-established obs., can actually cause more blatant misidentifications of taxa which are not even indigenous or established, which I would certainly think we don’t want to have happen!
I suppose its a matter of priorities. If I discovered a previously unknown population of something, I would be reporting it first to the DNR, rather than iNat. Same as if I caught a disease or pathogen; it seems entirely bizarre and whack to be attempting to document it here first above all other reporting sources.
This is what we have SAG groups for, so perhaps most of that work is redundant? I am someone who already knows the answers to many of those questions, and can make judgement calls for myself as to what can and cannot become established in many areas.
Judgement calls are not always correct though. When Asian Clams were first discovered in the Midwest, authorities left them alone as it was thought they were not cold hardy enough to survive in the region. But they turned out to be more tolerant of the climate than thought and now they are a terrible invasive species.
Also, now with the amount of buildings that exist, introduced populations (like the aforementioned House Mice) can now exist in areas far too cold for them by mostly or entirely living indoors.
So yeah, you might think you can be sure if an introduced species will survive or not. But you might not be right. Organisms can really surprise you with where they can live.
2 Likes
It’s not a burden - that’s how science works. Scientists ALWAYS must sift through any dataset, vetting what they do and do not want, for any dataset they did not create themselves. That’s what’s expected of them anyway when using this type of data.
What iNat needs is consistent rules for what does and does not end up in that dataset, so those scientists know exactly what they’re getting. It doesn’t really matter what those rules are, only that they are followed, so researchers know what kind of vetting they must do.
3 Likes
The point is that we can always change DQA votes (which by the way this thread is still not about) later based on new information and new evidence as it arises. It remains unclear as to why this still seems to be such a tax when there are users here that look at those things, and where it simply is a matter of bringing them to their attention. Why should the end goal be for everything to become “RG” only to never be touched again?
As for clams, this is entirely irrelevant, and comparing all other taxa to those is apples and oranges, as they get here all by different means. Yes, some species do indeed colonize the interiors of buildings, such as Hemidactylus spp., and in these cases, this is sufficient evidence for them to be “wild”. However, there are many other cases that are much more clear, and I am unaware of any common pet trade species, for example, which have established populations entirely inside buildings. These are very flawed “invasion biology” concepts which quickly fall apart as more and more “other” cases are considered.
As marina also correctly points out, most biological invasions outside of manmade environments happen through the mass release or transit of organisms of the same species, not individually released specimens that can easily be collected or removed from the environment.
1 Like
Asian Clams are extremely relevant here. You were claiming you can just tell from your knowledge if a species will become established or not. The Asian Clams in the Great Lakes are living, invasive proof that even invasion biologists can be wrong about that.
As for indoor introduced population from common pet species, I suggest you look into Green Anoles in Michigan and sea stars in a number of inland locations.
iNat staff have made it very clear that wild vs captive applies on the individual level, not the population level, so I’m not sure why you are trying to argue otherwise.
1 Like
@ericroscoe – You seem to be judging all iNaturalist observers and identifiers by your high level of knowledge, skill, and interest. Actually, iNaturalist is set up to gather data from the tremendous diversity of people out there with cell phones or other cameras, photographing nature. Most people aren’t going to know what’s new and what’s not – iNaturalist observers include many people who have no clue what they’ve photographed. Even among those of us who know a lot, our knowledge is uneven. I’d probably know if a plant were new to my state, but I wouldn’t have a clue about an insect (but I post them both). Unlike most people who post photos, I know who to contact about a weed I recognize as a potential invader (and I’ve done it) but most people don’t; many don’t even know there is someone to contact. Even in our role of identifier, we may not know whether the organism we’re correctly naming is native to the area where it was seen or whether it is a problem there, and we certainly don’t know whether it is a single escaped individual who will die or part of an incipient or well established population.
3 Likes
Not all non-native species are invasive species. This is a very important distinction. It would be my suspicion that even if there were a viable, self-sustaining population of A. carolinensis existing in someone’s greenhouse in MI (or any other out of natural range state for that matter), that this might more so be an example of that, or perhaps even a benefit as some form of other pest control. Much like house centipedes.
They likely just exist there without doing any real or demonstrated harm of any sort and the mode of introduction is probably not the same even though they might be the same species. In any event, a greenhouse is not a natural environment, and if we are to cite invasive concerns, it is the natural environment we should really be concerned about. Your analogies remain irrelevant and unconvincing.
When I’ve done research involving herbarium specimens (the analogue equivalent of iNaturalist photos), one of my first questions is, “Is this specimen really what the label says it is?” Sometimes I find it necessary to delve further into the question of when and where it was collected: Does this collector use what are now standard names for geographic features? Was this out-of-range plant from the collector’s garden, or was it wild? Does a pattern of collecting suggest the actual date behind the label “5/4/15”? (May or April, which century?) Why do these specimens from one site represent two species that would never grow together and would be unlikely at that site? And so forth.
That’s just real. Inspecting and evaluating the data is an important step in good scientific research. Expecting users of iNaturalist data to do this work is inappropriate, no matter how good we can make the data – expecting them to do less is to insult the scientists.
That said, we should do what we can to make sure iNaturalist data is correct – that identification, location, and date are correct and that anomalies are explained if possible. Interpretation of the event should be the responsibility of the data user. (I think of how angry I would be if I learned that the early steps of establishment of a weed I was studying had been removed from the data set because somebody thought it wouldn’t persist in the area!)
3 Likes
Ok sure, but non-invasive introduced species are just as important as invasive ones, just for different reasons.
2 Likes
Related question: How about a wild animal that is caught, brought into captivity, and then intentionally released? When (if ever) would that organism count as wild?
Asking in particular with regards to this Atlantic lyre crab, which was deposited in our museum’s touch tank by a fisherman, lived there for a week or two, and was subsequently released into the harbor.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/132184065
1 Like
The moment it moves from the spot it was released at.
3 Likes
This one hasn’t come up yet and is one of my favorite gray area ones: “adoptable” species, like a weed that sprouts in a pot and then gets cared for, see topic: Helianthus petiolaris in a pot.
1 Like
If they came up on their own they’re wild, even in a pot.
4 Likes
Definitely agree on the first observation, but it can become gray if the volunteer plant is:
- watered / taken care of in subsequent observations
- moved to the center of the pot
2 Likes
Moved to the center of the pot is captive, it was then planted. Being taken care of does not change its wild status at all, as it is still where it was intended to be. A human moving the pot would also make it captive.
2 Likes